[LibertyBelt]

yeah, that's a good one, but you go ballistic when the shoe's on the other foot, and Bush is behind the binocs. Did you read who is going to get the oil contract for US?? I read it was Haliburton, Cheney's old firm right?

Even Christopher Hitchens, who supports war, says "so what that oil is a major issue?" That just puts us and France on the same ground of struggle for economic advancement, right, or do we have better motivations when the oil benefits us?????

The Ruskies would benefit too with continued Iraq contact, but they seem to be coming around. IF I were Bush and we do invade, I'd cut Russia in on the deal and France out! Then let them protest and expose their low moral ground....

[gulfcoast6]

In all of 66 years I have been searching for two people who many get their information from, Mr. Heard, first name 'I' and Mr. Said, first name 'Somebody', havn't found them yet.

[lepton]

"so what that oil is a major issue?"

Part of the problem with these phrases is that logically it is like dividing by zero. "Oil" and "for" are used in ways that deprives them of specific meaning - though a meaning can be derived from the phrase.

We are not going to war, nor did we in 1991, to acquire oil, which is what phrases like "No war for Oil" imply. We go to war for a variety of reasons, but as it regards oil, the reason is to maintain free trade - to deny a third party the ability to seize oil from an accepting seller. It's more like protecting your grocer than it is fighting "for oil".